Thread: srpm odd spec file?
Hi all,
So my configuration manager and I sat down to get pg 9.0 into our build/code repo today and hit some oddities and was wondering if I was just doing it wrong on my end or if there might be an issue with the srpm download for RHEL 5 x86_64.
I downloaded the srpm and used that to make a rpm for our own internal use, the odd thing was a lot of the pathing from the spec file seemed to use directory paths that was, I thought, only used in beta roll outs.
e.g. a lot of the pathing was /usr/pgsql-9.0/ (when I thought final releases were always without the version number in the dir name)
can someone who knows what they are doing just take a quick look and see if I am wrong or if maybe something was missed when 9.0 went final?
Thanks
..: Mark
"mark" <dvlhntr@gmail.com> writes:
> So my configuration manager and I sat down to get pg 9.0 into our build/code
> repo today and hit some oddities and was wondering if I was just doing it
> wrong on my end or if there might be an issue with the srpm download for
> RHEL 5 x86_64.
You didn't say whose srpm you're talking about --- but if it's
Devrim's, he made a lot of changes in the latest versions to allow
parallel installation of different major PG versions. So seeing 9.0
in the paths wouldn't surprise me a bit.
regards, tom lane
Hi, On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 19:27 -0600, mark wrote: > I downloaded the srpm and used that to make a rpm for our own internal > use, the odd thing was a lot of the pathing from the spec file seemed > to use directory paths that was, I thought, only used in beta roll > outs. > e.g. a lot of the pathing was /usr/pgsql-9.0/ (when I thought final > releases were always without the version number in the dir name) > > can someone who knows what they are doing just take a quick look and > see if I am wrong or if maybe something was missed when 9.0 went > final? Please see this blog post: http://people.planetpostgresql.org/devrim/index.php?/archives/48-What-is-new-in-PostgreSQL-9.0-RPMs.html It explains why we did not change $PATH, which binaries are under $PATH, and other stuff. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Attachment
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 02:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > So seeing 9.0 in the paths wouldn't surprise me a bit. I used alternatives method for backward-compatible binaries, and did not play with $PATH, just a FYI. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Attachment
>-----Original Message----- >From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ [mailto:devrim@gunduz.org] >Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:12 AM >To: mark >Cc: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [NOVICE] srpm odd spec file? >Hi, >Please see this blog post: >http://people.planetpostgresql.org/devrim/index.php?/archives/48-What-is-new-in-PostgreSQL-9.0-RPMs.html >It explains why we did not change $PATH, which binaries are under $PATH, and other stuff. >Regards, -- >Devrim GÜNDÜZ >PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org >Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz Thanks, things are starting to make more sense to me nowl; that post was helpful and I want to say thank you for postingthis. I guess I just got a bit wary when I saw things I wasn't expecting. ..: Mark
mark wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > So my configuration manager and I sat down to get pg 9.0 into our > build/code repo today and hit some oddities and was wondering if I was > just doing it wrong on my end or if there might be an issue with the > srpm download for RHEL 5 x86_64. > > > > > > I downloaded the srpm and used that to make a rpm for our own internal > use, the odd thing was a lot of the pathing from the spec file seemed > to use directory paths that was, I thought, only used in beta roll outs. > > > > > > e.g. a lot of the pathing was /usr/pgsql-9.0/ (when I thought final > releases were always without the version number in the dir name) > > > > > > can someone who knows what they are doing just take a quick look and > see if I am wrong or if maybe something was missed when 9.0 went final? > > > > Thanks > > > > > > ..: Mark > No, I installed the final RPM packages from the official Yum repository for CentOS and RH EL5 and they do contain separate binary path. The reason is the pg_upgrade utility which needs the path to old binaries and the path to new binaries. I was able to do an upgrade without losing the data. -- Mladen Gogala Sr. Oracle DBA 1500 Broadway New York, NY 10036 (212) 329-5251 http://www.vmsinfo.com The Leader in Integrated Media Intelligence Solutions
Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > Please see this blog post: > > http://people.planetpostgresql.org/devrim/index.php?/archives/48-What-is-new-in-PostgreSQL-9.0-RPMs.html > > It explains why we did not change $PATH, which binaries are under $PATH, > and other stuff. > > Regards, > Devrim, you did an excellent job! I was able to install the new binaries and to upgrade my existing database without losing any data. The only inconvenient thing is that for some reason package config wasn't found by the CPAN utility, I had to enter the paths to the bin, lib and include directory manually. Once linked, however, DBD::Pg 2.17.1 was perfectly functional. For some reason, ODBC drivers are missing, but ODBCng can be installed and they work flawlessly. -- Mladen Gogala Sr. Oracle DBA 1500 Broadway New York, NY 10036 (212) 329-5251 http://www.vmsinfo.com The Leader in Integrated Media Intelligence Solutions
Hi, On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 13:17 -0400, Mladen Gogala wrote: > I was able to install the new binaries and to upgrade my existing > database without losing any data. Great, thanks for the report. > The only inconvenient thing is that for some reason package config > wasn't found by the CPAN utility, I had to enter the paths to the bin, > lib and include directory manually. Once linked, however, DBD::Pg > 2.17.1 was perfectly functional. Uhh... So I will probably need to include perl-DBD-Pg RPM in my repo, and build it to match the new layout... > For some reason, ODBC drivers are missing, Upstream did not release new ODBC driver for 9.0, and we have a report that 8.4 driver does not work against 9.0: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/DIIE.000009850001E2A1@kuhnle.com That's why I did not package it yet. > but ODBCng can be installed and they work flawlessly. FWIW, ODBCng was EOLed last year, so you might want to wait for the official driver. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Attachment
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 13:10 -0400, Mladen Gogala wrote: > No, I installed the final RPM packages from the official Yum > repository for CentOS and RH EL5 and they do contain separate binary > path. The reason is the pg_upgrade utility which needs the path to old > binaries and the path to new binaries. Haha, that was an unintentional side effect :-) Nice. I have never tested installing 8.4 along with 9.0... -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Attachment
Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 13:10 -0400, Mladen Gogala wrote: > >> No, I installed the final RPM packages from the official Yum >> repository for CentOS and RH EL5 and they do contain separate binary >> path. The reason is the pg_upgrade utility which needs the path to old >> binaries and the path to new binaries. >> > > Haha, that was an unintentional side effect :-) Nice. I have never > tested installing 8.4 along with 9.0... > Please, keep it this way. Everything is just perfect. I thought that this was done on purpose, but whatever the reason is, things work well the way they're now. -- Mladen Gogala Sr. Oracle DBA 1500 Broadway New York, NY 10036 (212) 329-5251 http://www.vmsinfo.com The Leader in Integrated Media Intelligence Solutions
Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > Hi > FWIW, ODBCng was EOLed last year, so you might want to wait for the > official driver. > > Regards, > > Also, postgresql90-plpython is not available for either the 64 bit or x386. -- Mladen Gogala Sr. Oracle DBA 1500 Broadway New York, NY 10036 (212) 329-5251 http://www.vmsinfo.com The Leader in Integrated Media Intelligence Solutions
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 17:49 -0400, Mladen Gogala wrote: > Also, postgresql90-plpython is not available for either the 64 bit or > x386. Which distro/version is this? Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Attachment
On 10/01/2010 07:59 AM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 17:49 -0400, Mladen Gogala wrote: > >> Also, postgresql90-plpython is not available for either the 64 bit or >> x386. >> > > Which distro/version is this? > > Regards, > This was on Red Hat 5 x86-64, but the RPM is here today. I should have been more careful. -- Mladen Gogala Sr. Oracle DBA 1500 Broadway New York, NY 10036 (212) 329-5251 www.vmsinfo.com The Leader in integrated Media Intelligence Solutions